Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 7
CNNW 6
KQED (PBS) 2
CSPAN 1
CSPAN2 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
from the director of central intelligence agency, that references of al qaeda were taken out for security reasons not for political reasons. do you accept the explanation by ambassador rice? >> i don't believe that the best intelligence assessment on 16, september was that there was a spontaneous event in benghazi based on a video that led to a mob that became a riot. the cia station chief on the day of the attack reported in realtime we're under attack by al qaeda affiliates. the president in libya said on the day of atack -- excuse me on 16, september, al qaeda was involved. we've got drones. released the video. we know what a mob looks like in the mideast. i am increasingly convinced the fbi interviewed the survivors in ramstein, germany, the day after and convinced that the best and current intelligence assessment on 16, september went against the video. the video was a political smoke screen. the actual facts were this was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack. when the president said on "letterman" we think the video caused this. when he said at the u.n. we won't le
to al qaeda that individuals with ties to al qaeda were involved. and then yet, went on the sunday show and left a very different impression. let's not forget that on those sunday shows on "meet the press" as well as "face the nation" she also made the statement that al qaeda was decimated. and so it left a misleading impression to the american people. i was also troubled that they knew by the 21st the acting director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions
. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> certainly she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> now, soledad, ambassador rice is not without her supporters. democrats on the hill say rice's republican critics are still the ones politicizing the benghazi atta
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
the highest ranking administration official to link the attacks with al qaeda. you can see john mccain interview tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern, only on the fox news channel. >>heather: and now from egypt, a teen member of the muslim brotherhood killed in a deadly attack on the headquarters near cairo. this is the party of the egypt's president morsi face unrest after a decision granting himself sweeping new powers. and now, streaming live from cairo, steve, what can you tell us about his planned meeting on monday with his opponent? >>reporter: there are signs that president morsi is trying to reach out to the opponents and will meet on monday with chief justices here in cairo. judges across the country have gone on strike since president morsi's decrease putting himself above the court. he is trying to reach out to the judges perhaps some time to move toward compromise by the president but talks with the opposition leaders with opposition figures still unlikely. many members of the opposition say there will be no dialogue with president morsi until he revokes the decrease. >>heather
by dr. rice. >> as i understand it, the explanation is that that was being withheld, the al-qaeda involvement was -- that point of the talking points was being withheld for classified reasons, but i also explored didn't you question that because that left, if you were to omit that portion, it leaves a very different impression to the american people and frankly, i didn't get a satisfactory answer to that. >> bill: joining us from washington to react, fox news analyst charles krauthammer. so bigger mess now than it's ever been. here is my assessment based on what happened today. i'm going to go on the record. this is what i think is going to happen and you can tell me if i'm right or wrong in your i think that the white house and the obamaeelection committee, all right, that means david axelrod, basically said that after the murder of the ambassador, they were going to tamp the story down so it didn't intrude on their narrative that the obama administration had decimated al-qaeda. so they ordered dr. rice, the ambassador to the u.n., to go out on the sunday shows and say that the s
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
't involved in removing the information on al qaeda. he said the intelligence community made the changes. in responding to this report, mccain admitted that he was wrong, but still took a shot at the white house. he said intelligence officials, quote, told us they did not know who made the changes. now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so suspicious of actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. meanwhile, his sidekick, lindsey graham, is going into full attack mode. senator graham wrote a letter to president obama on tuesday, saying that he's concerned. many questions remain unanswered on the benghazi attacks. he says the president has a duty to the american people to answer the basic questions surrounding the benghazi attack. so far, all of the right-wing conspiracy theories about the benghazi attack have been completely wrong. it's about time they dropped all of this nonsense and just went back to doing their jobs. let's bring in democratic consultant, tara doudel, and also with
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
for defense of democracy reveals u.s. interests in egypt, yes, ma'amen and tunisia were targeted by al-qaeda, in addition to their raid on the consulate in benefiting and the memo reads, quote, while much of the public debate has focused on the attack in benghazi alone, they deserve closer scrutiny. they are related to the al-qaeda network. ambassador rice is still recorded adds the front run torre place hillary clinton, although democratic senator dick durbin said yesterday he's not sure she could get the 60 votes needed for senate confirmation and he would try to get the votes together, but it's up to the president to nominate her first. >> steve: peter, thank you very much. her offensive yesterday was when the going gets tough, you got critics, go talk to them face-to-face. instead of making it better, she actually made it worse. then she brought along the acting director of the c.i.a. and he completely botched it. they were asked okay, so who changed the talking points? the c.i.a. guy said yep, i did. well, they called about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and the c.i.a. told capitol hill,
the reports she got of any al qaeda mention. that was probably done within the intelligence community herself. her job as u.n. ambassador was to tell what that intelligence report said on the sunday shows and that's what she did. i don't think there's any reason to disqualify her based on anything that's happened in the last year. and, frankly, i guess i'd cut her a little slack for some of the political attacks she's taken. i guess i don't agree with graham and mccain on this one. but if you're going to be a diplomat, you should probably be diplomatic all the way around. ( laughter ) you're going to come in for a little criticism. >> benghazi has almost taken on a yalta fascination, who lost china. it seems to-- there's no question there are legislate questions about yet security was so inadequate, but the idea that this was some master conspiracy hatched in some foreign capital just seems a little bit beyond-- >> brown: guys-- go ahead. go ahead, david. david, you wanted to jump in? >> i just would say i think this is echoes of the w.m.d. thing where the bush administration was accused of
not to say because we didn't want al qaeda to know we knew it at that point. the real question is why is mccain making this attack and wasting whatever political capital and reputation he has left? >> reporter: well, some people are wondering does mccain want to simply stay in the spotlight? mccain is known for foreign policy. he's known for going on sunday shows. the benghazi issue gets him back in the spotlight. everyone is talking about john mccain again. so some people wonder if there's a little bit of political opportunism there. >> i want to go back to something krystal said a minute ago. closing ranks behind susan rice because much political battle lines in this. you made the point earlier if you just looked at this without regard to benghazi and said john mccain realistically speaking, who potentially could appoint secretary of state that would agree ideological with you. realistically susan rice is as good as he can do. the consensus in the democratic party is probably to the right of it. i wonder is there any push-back from the left or from democrats in washington toward the admin
by al qaeda affiliates but, rather, that it had begun with a protest that we nownow was nonexistent and that it was linked to a video, which we also know is not accurate. at the time ambassador rice made these assertions, there was conflicting evidence it is true but we had the president of libya saying that 50 people had been a resident, that people, terrorists from other countries had come to libya, and that the attack was premeditated and planned. i asked ambassador rice why she did not qualify her comments more in light of this contradictory reporting from the president of the country. her answer was that she relied on our intelligence analysis. i don't understand why she would not have at least qualified her response to that question. i'm also very troubled by the fact that we seem not to have learned from the 1998 bombings of two of our embassies in africa at the time when ambassador rice was the assistant secretary for african affairs. those bombings in 1998 resulted in the loss of life of 12 americans as well as many other foreign nationals and 4,000 people were injured. wha
that the cia drafted those talking points. the dni, director of national intelligence removed the word al qaeda. they said it came from classic information. it's a tightly and it might influence the investigations. >> republicans will probably not be satisfied by rice's explanations. >> reporter: i would think not at this point because i don't think she really moves the ball from what we understood and that is what the administration has been saying. she was given this information by the intelligence community and that she repeated it and that there was no intention to mislead. it hasn't been accepted by the republicans yet and we'll just have to see where they go. one of the most interesting ones will be the stay department investigation perhaps in december and will really wrap things up. >> all right. after stuffing yourself with turkey today maybe you'll work it off by getting caught up in the black friday shopping frenzy which starts early this year. employees at stores like target want their holiday. more than one person is wondering why you want want to leave your family at a red tag sale
of the rewriting of those talking points was done by the fbi to take out al qaeda references, not by the zewe we had been told by the director of national intelligence came from the intelligence committee. it's worse than when she went up. she'll see bob corker, known to be bipartisan from tennessee and i don't think it'll be quite as vitriolic as yesterday. she felt she wanted to clear her name and she had been maligned and just been on morning television. that the real issue as jay carney was trying to say what happened before, what happened during but not what happened on sunday morning television programs and there is an investigation that hillary clinton has commissioned. it is a legally mandated investigation being led by none other than the former chairman, joint chief, mike ullin and co-chaired from mike pickering and deputy secretary of state. it's going to be coming out in mid-december and reported to congress and i understand it's going to be very tough on the state department for not ramping up security which many people believe could be the real issue here, not what was said on sund
-time, the state now is disconnected from reality. [inaudible] jump out at you. this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of in cory and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear -- inquiry into gaza, i think we pretty clear as related to a video that created a mod that turned into a riot was far a field. and at the end of the day we are going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say, i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got bad information on 16 september. they got bad information from president obama the days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, it's better to give no information at all. so my belief is not only is the information bad, and i'm more convinced than ever that it was ba
. anybody looking at the threats, it would jump out at you that this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity i think it is pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a mob that turned into a riot was far afield and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system we can trust, and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say, i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got bad information on 16 september. they got bad information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? my belief is, not only is the information bad, and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as pres
't know how these talking points had been changed and al qaeda and terrorist attacks have been taken out of it. just a day or so ago, it may have been the director of national intelligence james clapper, or someone on his staff. congress has a lot of work to do to get us answers. two months after this tragic event. martha: james clapper testified last week and he said he is unaware of who changed the talking points. he said that he will find out and changes were made outside of the intelligence committee. so how can he be blamed if he is saying that and testifying, saying that he didn't change anything? >> i do not know. i am so confused. the american people are confused. that is very troubling. congress has the ability to talk to these individuals where the truth should be revealed. there may be reagan's that they don't until certain things because of intelligence sources there's no reason they can't tell the chairman of the intelligence committee in the house and senate. this is very troubling, the american people deserve better. we need answers about this and the credibility of the na
ago from the former c.i.a. director who said i thought it was al-qaeda within 24 hours. it was edited out. they said, oh, those, i touched it, essentially politics enters in. if she says i went by this paper, what kind secretary of state goes by this paper and doesn't use all her plethora of contacts to find out what the real story is? >> steve: exactly. keep in mind, in addition to the unclassified talking points she works also had access to the classified. so she knew it really was happening. bill o'reilly was talking to john mccain about this last night and here is a little of their conversation. >> is she a dishonest woman, senator? is she dishonest? did she go out there knowing what she said was false and say it anyway? that's the crux of this matter. >> i don't think it was a matter of dishonesty. it was a matter, again, of responsibility. there was plenty of information out there, which she has access to, which contradicted what she said. if you're telling the american people, speaking for the white house, it was the white house that sent her out, off responsibility to make sur
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
, what happened is he told the senators that it was actually the fbi who took al qaeda references out of the unclassified talking points. only to call back several hours later saying, oops, i was wrong, it wasn't the fbi, it was the cia. here is what lindsey graham said about that. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours. and is totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi. and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> so what these meetings least this particular issue has done is added fuel to the fire and it is not like, you needed to add any more fuel to the fire, especially for senators like lindsey graham who is already really publicly outraged about a lot of issues dealing with the benghazi attack. >> this is just one more. one more. dana bash, thank you. >>> after trashing the hit tv show "two and a half men," the actor angus jones, now back tracking from his controve
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)